The authors studied effects of majority and minority support on persuasion for nondiscrepant positions. In two experiments, students (N = 188) read messages on previously unknown attitude objects. These messages were attributed to numerical majorities (high consensus) or minorities (low consensus). The results show that consensus information can bias systematic processing of message content. High consensus evoked positively biased cognitive responses that focused on message content (convergent processing), whereas low consensus elicited negatively biased processing that pertained to new aspects of the issue (divergent processing). Post-message attitudes were more positive under high consensus than under low consensus; this effect was mediated via thought valence but not via thought convergence. In Experiment 2, these effects were replicated if consensus information preceded message processing but not if it was presented after message processing. Furthermore, in both experiments, cognitive activity was lower if consensus information was presented (vs. not presented) before the message.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9), 1-70 (whole No. 416).
2.
Axsom, D. , Yates, S. M., & Chaiken, S. (1987). Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 30-40.
3.
Baker, S. M. , & Petty, R. E. (1994). Majority and minority influence: Source-position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 5-19.
4.
Baron, R. M. , & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research. Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
5.
Bohner, G. , Chaiken, S., & Hunyadi, P. (1994). The role of mood and message ambiguity in the interplay of heuristic and systematic processing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 207-221.
6.
Bohner, G. , Moskowitz, G., & Chaiken, S. (1995). The interplay of heuristic and systematic processing of social information. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 33-68). Chichester, UKWiley.
7.
Chaiken, S. , Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chen, S. (1996). Defense and impression motives in heuristic and systematic information processing. In P. M. Gollwitzer &J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 553-578). New York: Guilford.
8.
Chaiken, S. , Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman &J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford.
9.
Chaiken, S. , & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.
10.
Chaiken, S. , & Stangor, C. (1987). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 575-630.
11.
Cook, T. D. (1969). Competence, counter arguing, and attitude change. Journal of Personality, 37, 342-358.
12.
Crano, W. D. , & Hannula-Bral, K. A. (1994). Context/categorization model of social influence: Minority and majority influence in the formation of a novel response norm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 247-276.
13.
De Dreu, C. , & De Vries, N. (1993). Numerical support, information processing and attitude change. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 647-662.
14.
Eagly, A. H. , & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
15.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
16.
Fiske, S. T. , & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
17.
Greenwald, A. G. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change. In A. Greenwald, T. Brock, & T. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 148-170). New YorkAcademic Press.
18.
Houston, D. A. , & Fazio, R. H. (1989). Biased processing as a function of attitude accessibility: Making objective judgments subjectively. Social Cognition, 7, 51-66.
19.
Kruglanski, A. W. , & Mackie, D. M. (1990). Majority and minority influence: Ajudgmental process analysis. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 229-261). Chichester, UKWiley.
20.
Levine,J. M. (1989). Reaction to opinion deviance in small groups. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 187-231). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
Maass, A. , & Clark, R. D., III. (1984). Hidden impact of minorities: Fifteen years of minority influence research. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 428-450.
22.
Mackie, D. M. (1987). Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 41-52.
23.
Macrae, C. N. , Milne, A. B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy saving devices: A peek inside the toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 37-47.
24.
Maheswaran, D. , & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low motivation settings: The effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13-25.
25.
Markus, H. , & Zajonc, R. B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In G. Linzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 137-230). New York: Random House.
26.
McGuire, W.J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Linzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 233-346). NewYork: Random House.
27.
Moscovici, S. (1980). Toward a theory of conversion behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 209-239). New YorkAcademic Press.
28.
Moscovici, S. , & Lage, E. (1976). Studies in social influence. III: Majority vs. minority influence in a group. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 149-174.
29.
Moscovici, S. , Lage, E., & Naffrechoux, M. (1969). Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color perception task. Sociometry, 3Z365-379.
30.
Moskowitz, G. B. , & Chaiken, S. (1995). Extending the attribution analysis of persuasion to minority influence: The case of multiple plausible causes. Unpublished manuscript, New York University.
31.
Mugny, G. (1982). The power of minorities. London: Academic Press.
32.
Mugny, G. , & Papastamou, S. (1980). When rigidity does not fail: individualization and psychologization resistances to the diffusion of minority innovations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 43-62.
33.
Mugny, G. , & Perez, J. A. (1991). The social psychology of minority influence. Cambridge, UKCambridge University Press.
34.
Nemeth, C. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23-32.
35.
Nemeth, C. , & Kwan, J. (1985). Originality of word associations as a function of majority vs. minority influence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 277-282.
36.
Nemeth, C. , & Kwan, J. L. (1987). Minority influence: Divergent thinking and detection of correct solutions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 788-799.
37.
Nemeth, C. , Mayseless, O., Sherman, J., & Brown, Y. (1990). Exposure to dissent and recall of information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 429-437.
38.
Nemeth, C. , Mosier, K., & Chiles, C. (1992). When convergent thought improves performance: Majority versus minority influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 139-144.
39.
Nemeth, C. , & Wachtler, J. (1973). Consistency and modification of judgement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 65-79.
40.
Nemeth, C. , & Wachtler,J. (1983). Creative problem solving as a result of majority vs. minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 45-55.
41.
Nisbett, R. , & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings in social judgmentEnglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
42.
Peterson, R. S. , & Nemeth, C.J. (1996). Focusversus flexibility: Majority and minority influence can both improve performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 14-23.
43.
Petty, R. E. , & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Issue involvement as a moderator of the effects on attitude of advertising content and context. Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 20-24.
44.
Petty, R. E. , & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69-81.
45.
Petty, R. E. , & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.
46.
Rank, S. , Bohner, G., Erb, H:P., & Einwiller, S. (1997). The compatibility hypothesis: A multiple-motive approach to majority and minority persuasion. Unpublished manuscript, University of Mannheim.
47.
Ross, L. , Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The "false consensus effect": An ego-centric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279-301.
48.
Sherif, M. (1958). Group influences upon the formation of norms and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 219-232). New York: Henry Holt.
49.
Slovic, P. , Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Behavioral decision theory. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 1-39). Palo Alto, CA.Annual Reviews.
50.
Trost, M. R. , Maass, A., & Kenrick, D. T. (1992). Minority influence: Personal relevance biases cognitive processes and reverses private acceptance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 234-254.
51.
Volpato, C. , Maass, A., Mucchi-Faina, A., & Vitti, E. (1990). Minority influence and social categorization. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 119-132.
52.
Watts, W. A. , & Holt, L. E. (1979). Persistence of opinion change induced under conditions of forewarning and distraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 778-789.
53.
Wood, W. , Lundgren, S., Ouellette, J. A., Busceme, S., & Blackstone, T. (1994). Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 323-345.
